Clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in evaluating the invasive area of hilar cholangiocarcinoma

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2014.01.009

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To investigate the clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in evaluating the invasive area of hilar cholangiocarcinoma.

Methods

Clinical data of 103 patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma who received conventional ultrasound and CEUS examination in Department of Medical Ultrasonics, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from January 2005 to March 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were confirmed by contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or surgical pathological examination. There were 70 males and 33 females with mean age of (59±13) years old. The informed consents of all patients were obtained and the ethical committee approval was received. The patients received conventional ultrasound and CEUS examination both. The display of invasive area of hilar cholangiocarcinoma by two methods was observed. The contrast-enhanced CT, MRI or surgical pathological examination were regarded as the gold standards. The diagnostic accordance rates of invasive area of hilar cholangiocarcinoma by two methods were calculated and compared using Chi-square test.

Results

For conventional ultrasound, 28 cases were with ill-defined tumor borders and 75 cases were with well-defined or poorly defined tumor borders, in which 33% (25/75) of the tumor invasive areas were intraductal, 67% (50/75) were intraductal and extraductal. In arterial phase of CEUS, tumors in 51.4% (53/103) of patients were displayed hyper-enhanced, 28.2% (29/103) were homo-enhanced, and 20.4% (21/103) were hypo-enhanced. In venous phase, tumors in 100% (103/103) of patients were displayed hypo-enhanced. For CEUS, 16.5% (17/103) of the tumor invasive areas were intraductal, 83.5% (86/103) were intraductal and extraductal. The diagnostic accordance rate was 59.2% (61/103) by conventional ultrasound and was 99.0% (102/103) by CEUS. The diagnostic accordance rate of CEUS was significantly higher than that of conventional ultrasound (χ²=17.611, P<0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with conventional ultrasound, CEUS can evaluate the invasive area of hilar cholangiocarcinoma more accurately.

Key words: Ultrasonography, Ultrasonography, interventional, Bile duct neoplasms, Neoplasm invasiveness

Guanghui Guo, Jie Ren, Rongqin Zheng, Ting Zhang, Tao Wu, Man Zhang, Erjiao Xu. Clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in evaluating the invasive area of hilar cholangiocarcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2014, 03(01): 33-36.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhgzwkssxdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2014.01.009

https://zhgzwkssxdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2014/V03/I01/33

References 18

[1]	Welzel TM,McGlynn KA,Hsing AW, et al. Impact of classifcation of hilar cholangiocarcinomas (Klatskin tumors) on the incidence of intra- and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States[J]. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2006, 98(12): 873-875.
[2]	Bold RJ,Goodnight JE Jr. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: surgical and endoscopic approaches[J]. Surg Clin North Am, 2004, 84(2): 525-542.
[3]	Clary B,Jarnigan W,Pitt H, et al. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma[J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2004, 8(3): 298-302.
[4]	Burke EC,Jarnagin WR,Hochwald SN, et al. Hilar patterns of spread, the importance of hepatic resection for curative operation, and a presurgical clinical staging system[J]. Ann Surg, 1998, 228(3): 385-394.
[5]	Claudon M,Cosgrove D,Albrecht T, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced altrasound (CEUS): update 2008[J]. Ultraschall Med, 2008, 29(1): 28-44.
[6]	Ito F,Cho CS,Rikkers LF, et al. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: current management[J]. Ann Surg, 2009, 250(2): 210-218.
[7]	Vilgrain V. Staging cholangiocarcinoma by imaging studies[J]. HPB, 2008, 10(2): 106-109.
[8]	Foley WD,Quiroz FA. The role of sonography in imaging of the biliary tract[J]. Ultrasound Q, 2007, 23(2): 123-135.
[9]	周宁新，陈军周．肝门部胆管癌外科治疗现状与评价[J]．中华外科杂志，2009, 47(15): 1127-1129.
[10]	Jang JY,Kim SW,Park DJ, et a1. Actual long-term outcome of extrahepatic bile duct cancer after surgical resection[J]. Ann Surg, 2005, 241(1): 77-84.
[11]	Manfredi R,Masselli G,Maresca G, et al. MR imaging and MRCP of hilar cholangiocarcinoma[J]. Abdom Imaging, 2003, 28(3): 319-325.
[12]	Choi JY,Kim MJ,Lee JM, et al. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: role of preoperative imaging with sonography, MDCT, MRI, and direct cholangiography[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008, 191(5): 1448-1457.
[13]	Neumaier CE,Bertolotto M,Perrone R, et al. Staging of hilar cholangiocarcinoma with ultrasound[J]. J Clin Ultrasound, 1995, 23(3): 173-178.
[14]	吴涛，许尔蛟，郑荣琴，等．肝门部胆管癌超声造影与增强MRI增强模式的对比研究[J/CD]．中华医学超声杂志：电子版，2012, 9(3): 211-215.
[15]	Bismuth H,Corlette MB. Intrahepatic cholangioenteric anastomosis in carcinoma of the hilus of the liver[J]. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 1975, 140(2): 170-178.
[16]	Wilson SR,Burns PN. An algorithm for the diagnosis of focal liver masses using microbubble contrast-enhanced pulse-inversion sonography[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2006, 186(5): 1401-1412.
[17]	Xu HX,Chen LD,Xie XY, et al. Enhancement pattern of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus contrast-enhanced computed tomography[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2010, 75(2): 197-202.
[18]	Bauditz J,Schade T,Wermke W. Sonographic diagnosis of hilar cholangiocarcinomas by the use of contrast agents[J]. Ultraschall Med, 2007, 28(2): 161-167.

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export